In any case, even if you’re right, that isn’t a problematic statement in itself; it can only potentially lead to problems.

A follow-up response that came up in a separate thread and was moved here:

I apologize for opening a new thread; for some reason I didn’t have the option to reply to your response in my previous post.
I was talking about this video of yours:

So my follow-up question is: what is the purpose of speaking the truth? Does speaking the truth have value in itself even though it can cause an increase in racism?

And what if the goal here is to smear the black group and nothing more?

Do you think there is a boundary between talking about blacks being stupid as part of an intellectual discussion, and saying it in order to slander blacks?

Isn’t it right to try to strike a balance between speaking the truth and increasing racism?

Truth has value in itself. Of course. Beyond that, the distinction is between falsehood and truth, not according to motivations. Motivations are a fairly secondary matter. Questions of balance are tactical, not essential.

In my opinion, the issue of motivations is not secondary, because it is what determines how what is said is perceived in society.

If I put up a Facebook post along the lines of: “Blacks are stupid and it’s time everyone knew it”

then there is slander here against a group, as opposed to a post that argues that there are IQ differences between groups and brings relevant arguments for that, where it’s clear that the goal is to conduct an intellectual discussion and not just to smear.

Slander is a bad thing both because it reinforces stereotypes against the black group (or any other group), and also because the slander emotionally harms the members of the group.

I don’t think it’s possible to oppose discrimination on the practical level without also opposing slander, because for a business owner, for example, it will be hard to separate the stereotype that blacks are stupid from unjustified discrimination in hiring them. So racist discourse leads to racist discrimination, and it is hard to separate discrimination from the discourse that sustains it. In a society where there is room for derogatory discourse against blacks, there will naturally also be more discrimination against them.

You started with a jug and ended with a barrel. We started with a discussion about racism and ended with manners and etiquette. I’m done.

Okay, I’d just be glad to ask one last question.

You wrote that truth has value in itself; I’d be glad to understand what its value is.

There is no way to justify and ground values. If I ground the value of truth in x, you’ll ask why x is a value. A value is an end, not a tool for something else. The seal of the Holy One, blessed be He, is truth, and falsehood is evil.
Can you explain to me what the value of a person’s life is?

The value of life is a basic value, without which no other value exists.

I agree with you that it is hard to explain why one value is good and another is not, and values usually depend on our preferences, but it is still possible to ask why prioritize value X over value Y, or whether it is possible to balance the two values, or to prioritize one value absolutely.

Suppose you’re right—so what? Then life is not a value, and neither is anything else.
It isn’t hard to justify; it’s impossible. A justification will always explain that x is a value because it leads to y. But then x is not a value, because it is a means and not an end, and y is the value. Now you will have to explain y, and so on ad infinitum.
The same applies to comparisons, to a scale of values: you run into the problem of incommensurability, which shows that this too is impossible, and for the same reason (if a value is not meant to serve something else, how will you compare two values? What will be the common measure?).
These things were explained in the fourth talk in The First Existent and in the series of my lectures on ethics / morality.
Bottom line, this discussion is pointless.